But that hasn’t kept Illinois from indirectly reaping the economic benefits of fracking. Illinoisans have already enjoyed lower energy and gasoline prices thanks to shale development, and now, four pipeline construction projects and a tank farm expansion are set to further boost the state’s struggling economy.

Enbridge is about to begin construction on a pair of pipeline extensions in Illinois this spring, and two Energy Transfer pipeline projects are expected to get underway in early 2016. The new pipelines will transfer crude both to and from the massive Marathon tank farm in Patoka, which is in the midst of a multi-million dollar expansion.

All told, $1.76 billion has been invested in these projects, which could generate 4,300 jobs and more than $4 billion in new tax revenue for a state that desperately needs both. All five projects share a common theme – none of them would be taking place if not for shale development.

The new pipelines will allow crude to be transported from the Bakken and Three Forks shale plays in North Dakota to the Patoka storage facility, located in south-central Illinois, in addition to facilitating transport of oil from the Patoka tank farm to refineries along the Gulf Coast and Mississippi River.

All of this has been made possible due to technological advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that have been responsible for North Dakota’s jump from 309,000 barrels of crude oil production a day in 2010 to more than one million barrels per day in 2014.

Construction of Enbridge’s Southern Access Extension pipeline is scheduled to begin on June 1. The 167-mile addition will extend from Enbridge’s Flanagan terminal in northern Illinois to Patoka.

Enbridge has made a $765 million capital investment in the project and up to $4 billion in additional tax revenue for Illinois is possible once the project is completed.

The new 24-inch pipeline will transport approximately 300,000 barrels per day. It is expected to create as many as 850 employment opportunities for construction professionals and new business for contractors hired to assist in the design, survey, environmental assessment and project planning process. Many of those workers are expected to be hired from local communities.

It should also greatly benefit the economies of communities along its path, as out-of-state workers will be renting property, eating in local restaurants, shopping at local stores and filling up hotels and campgrounds.

Okaw Valley Kampground, located within walking distance from the planned path of the pipeline in Fayette County, was struggling to stay in business a year ago. Now, all 14 of the facility’s full-hookup camper/RV lots are reserved and the campground’s 22 water and electric lots are expected to fill up soon. Owners Gary and Barbara Hoffmann are now talking about adding eight more full-hookup lots. Barbara Hoffmann said in a recent interview with EID that the pipeline project has been a godsend for their business:

“Absolutely,” co-owner Barb Hoffmann said. “We bought this a year ago and we are trying to fix it up. The extra money will be nice.”

Workers started filtering into the area in November and they are expected to stay much longer than the Hoffmanns and others expected:

“The first guy that came in said he would be here two years. Then his boss asked him if he would mind if he doubled that, so he might be here four years.”

Enbridge is also planning to complete a 79-mile crude oil pipeline extension from its Pontiac Terminal to a terminal in Griffith, Ind. The $323 million project is expected to create 600 construction jobs. The company’s pipeline upgrade project just west of Chicago could add another 75 jobs.

Energy Transfer’s planned Dakota Access pipeline will also transfer North Dakota crude to the Patoka tank farm. Construction is expected to begin in early 2016. The 177-mile Illinois portion of the 1,134-mile pipeline is expected to create approximately 2,000 construction jobs, at least half of which will go to local residents. Energy Transfer has agreed to employ 100 percent union contractors, including at least 50 percent from local union halls, including welders, mechanics, electricians, pipefitters and heavy equipment operators. Regional manufacturers of steel pipes, fittings, valves, pumps and control devices will also be in high demand.

The project has a $516 million capital investment and will generate an estimated $750,000 in property taxes in 2017 and more than $27 million in estimated sales and income taxes during construction.

Energy Transfer is also in the process of converting 678 miles of an existing natural gas pipeline, including 131 miles of Illinois pipeline from the southern tip of the state in Joppa to the Wayne County community of Johnsonville, which is believed to be the possible focal point of potential shale development in Illinois.

The total project would employ up to 800 people, including up to 15 permanent positions, and allow the transfer of crude all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. It would also facilitate oil booms in Wayne, Clay, Hamilton and White counties, where thousands of acres have been leased by producers interested in shale development.

Increased domestic oil production has also led to a $158 million of planned expansion projects at the Marathon tank farm in Patoka.

The first phase is underway and will involve the construction of four new tanks, increasing storage capacity by 1.25 million barrels. The second phase will add five new tanks for an increased storage capacity of two million barrels. The project has created 200 temporary jobs and will lead to 10 permanent positions.

Granted, the economic impact of these projects pales in comparison to the projected $9.5 billion of economic activity full-scale shell development could bring to the Land of Lincoln. But even with that development currently delayed, the resounding success of the fracking revolution in other parts of the country has managed to spread into Illinois.

]]>http://energyindepth.org/illinois/shale-related-projects-set-to-bolster-illinois-struggling-economy/feed/0EIA: U.S. Oil Production Growth Soars, Texas Leads the Wayhttp://energyindepth.org/texas/eia-u-s-oil-production-soars-texas-leads-way/
http://energyindepth.org/texas/eia-u-s-oil-production-soars-texas-leads-way/#commentsTue, 31 Mar 2015 17:55:17 +0000http://energyindepth.org/?p=32381According to numbers released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) this week, crude oil production in the United States increased more in 2014 than it has in the last 100 years. Crude oil production rose by a whopping 1.2 million barrels per day, and reached 8.7 million barrels per day.

When one looks at the growth of production in 2014 in terms of percentage, the numbers are equally as remarkable. The percentage increase in production in 2014 was 16.2 percent, which is the highest jump the U.S. has seen in over 60 years. This is impressive, especially when one considers that the end of the year brought in industry uncertainty and low prices.

The EIA attributes the majority of this growth to shale formations in Texas, North Dakota, and New Mexico, where hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are used for crude oil production. Texas topped the list as the highest producing state in 2014, producing 1.1 million barrels per day. That means that in 2014, Texas produced over 12 percent of the nation’s oil.

The above chart demonstrates how large the crude oil gains have been in the Lone Star State over the last five years. Texas has long been a major player in America’s crude game, and 2014 did not disappoint. According to the EIA, Texas crude oil production rose by nearly 25 percent, or 230,129 barrels. These astronomical numbers have also brought astronomical benefits to the state of Texas. According to Texas Oil & Gas Association President, Todd Staples:

“In 2014, the Texas oil and natural gas industry paid a record $15.7 billion in state and local taxes and royalties, the highest such collection from the oil and gas industry in Texas history […]The oil and natural gas industry directly employed 418,000 Texans, with indirect economic gains resulting in another 1.8 million Texas jobs in supporting industries and sectors. More than 2.2 million Texans have a job that’s a result of oil and gas activity in our state.”

Similar economic benefits were felt all over the country in 2014, thanks to American crude oil producers. The production growth of 2014 created more jobs, funded more tax dollars, and helped to secure America’s energy future at a pace that was unlike any other year the industry has seen.

Despite the price drop of late, the EIA still predicts that crude oil in the United States will rise again in 2015. By the end of this year, the EIA expects the nation to be producing 9.35 million barrels of crude per day.

]]>http://energyindepth.org/texas/eia-u-s-oil-production-soars-texas-leads-way/feed/0New Study Finds Low Public Health Risk from Oil and Gas Developmenthttp://energyindepth.org/national/new-study-finds-low-public-health-risk-from-oil-and-gas-development/
http://energyindepth.org/national/new-study-finds-low-public-health-risk-from-oil-and-gas-development/#commentsTue, 31 Mar 2015 12:44:49 +0000http://energyindepth.org/?p=32369The Ministry of Health in British Columbia, Canada recently released phase two of its Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) of oil and gas activities in the area, which found that the risk of impacts to public health are low. As the new assessment concludes:

“The overall findings of the detailed HHRA of oil and gas activity in NE BC suggest that, while there is some possibility for elevated COPC [chemicals of potential concern] concentrations to occur at some locations, the probability that adverse health impacts would occur in association with these exposures is considered to be low.” (page ii)

The results are in line with numerous studies by health and environmental regulators in the United States. The findings also directly contradict Governor Cuomo’s decision to ban fracking in New York, which as EID has highlighted, was based on biased studies, some of which that were even written and peer-reviewed by anti-fracking activists.

The B.C. study evaluated continuous air emissions from gas process plants and production facilities in three regions. The 150 km by 176 km area chosen was done so to include the largest area of oil and gas development and the most densely populated areas in the region. It encompasses 26 locations including Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd, along with smaller communities and First Nation lands.

The study also included non-oil and gas emitters in the area that could contribute to the air quality of the area and took into consideration populations with sensitive health, age and other external parameters. It looked at both long-term and short-term health risks, and compared those with exposure limits from various authorities such as the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and U.S. EPA.

In other words, it was a very comprehensive analysis of actual emissions and potential impacts. Here are some of the key findings, emphasis added:

“In general, the predicted short-term air concentrations of the COPC were less than their health based exposure limits. As well, the potential combined risks of these COPC were not predicted to result in adverse health effects in people living or visiting the study area. However, the predicted exposures at some locations were found to exceed exposure limits for certain individual COPC (acrolein, formaldehyde, NO2, SO2, PM 2.5) and the mixtures that these COPC were part of (the eye, nasal and respiratory irritants). The exceedances for formaldehyde, NO2 and SO2 were found to be attributable to Oil and Gas emission sources, with some contributions from other sources in the area. Due to the rare nature of these exceedances and the margin of safety built into the HHRA, these exposures are not expected to result in adverse health effects.”

The study found that most of the short-term emissions were under exposure limit guidelines, and that even in the minimal cases where emissions exceeded exposure limits from both oil and gas and other sources, they would not result in adverse health effects. The study also found that:

“Overall, long-term inhalation exposures to the COPC were predicted to be associated with a low potential for adverse health effects. For fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), exceedances of the BC Ambient Air Quality Objective were predicted for only the Cumulative Scenario at two remote locations where people are unlikely to be regularly exposed. For formaldehyde, potential cancer risks were predicted for a remote location in close proximity to an oil and gas site. However, further analysis of this exceedance indicating that the probability for people to be exposed to formaldehyde concentrations at the predicted level over a lifetime was very low. When the potential combined, additive effects of the COPC were evaluated, nasal and respiratory irritant mixtures were predicted to have elevated risk estimates. However, given the locations of where the maximum concentrations for these chemicals were expected to occur (e.g. formaldehyde), and the degree of conservatism incorporated into the assessment, the potential mixture risks were determined to have a low potential for adverse health effects.”

For long-term exposure, researchers looked at cancer risks, as well as other respiratory issues. Data showed that even with long-term exposure the possibility of there being adverse health effects was very low.

“In the assessment of potential exposures to the COPC that people in the area might receive over the long term through the consumption of locally-grown foods, drinking water, etc., it was determined that the potential for adverse human health effects is low.”

Finally, the study also looked at other ways populations may be exposed to the emissions aside from inhalation. This included long-term consumption of locally-grown foods and drinking water, and again the data showed a low risk for negative human health impacts.

All in all this study is great news for communities nearby oil and gas development, and adds to the mounting studies showing this activity has an exceedingly low risk of impacting health.

]]>http://energyindepth.org/national/new-study-finds-low-public-health-risk-from-oil-and-gas-development/feed/0Fact Check.org Rushes to Defend Federal Fracking Regulations, Steps on a Rakehttp://energyindepth.org/national/fact-check-org-rushes-to-defend-federal-fracking-regulations-steps-on-a-rake/
http://energyindepth.org/national/fact-check-org-rushes-to-defend-federal-fracking-regulations-steps-on-a-rake/#commentsFri, 27 Mar 2015 23:00:11 +0000http://energyindepth.org/?p=32367This afternoon, Fact Check.org produced a fact-check that ostensibly criticizes U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) for his contention that there has never been an instance of ground water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. Of course, this piece isn’t really about Inhofe at all; but before we get into that, we can’t help but wonder why they are fact-checking Inhofe and not former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson … or Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz … or Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell — all of whom have said exactly the same thing.

Rather than a “fact-check,” it reads more like an advocacy piece making the case for the Obama Administration’s decision to impose onerous new federal rules on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, which will inevitably stifle oil and gas production. Unfortunately, to make its case, FactCheck.org uses questionable or even dubious “facts,” and fails to disclose important facts about an activist who is cited extensively.

“Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell civil and environmental engineering professor, told us in a phone interview that discussing contamination related to the frack per se isn’t useful. ‘The simpler question to ask is, ‘Is there any instance in which oil and gas development, writ large, has contaminated peoples’ drinking water?’ And the answer is, thousands. Thousands of cases.’”

Ingraffea has been claiming for years that wells fail at astronomical rates, namely by suggesting that pressure buildup in a well is the same thing as a leak. Fact check: it’s not.

In order for a well to fail, every one of the multiple layers of thick cement and steel would have to crack and leak. Easily obtained data in a simple Google search confirm that such instances are exceedingly rare.

For example, the Associated Press recently completed an investigation of water contamination and well integrity, and using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, found a well failure rate of only about one-third of one percent (0.33 percent) in Pennsylvania. Further, a 2011 study by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) found a well failure rate of only 0.03 percent in Ohio and only about 0.01 percent in Texas. Importantly, those numbers pertain to operating situations that predate many of the new casing regulations that have gone into effect in those states in recent years.

Additionally, Ingraffea’s work has been publicly criticized by University of Chicago climate scientist Raymond Pierrehumbert, physics professor at Berkeley Richard Muller, and earth and atmospheric sciences professor at Cornell Louis Derry . Michael Levi, an energy and environmental expert from the Center for Foreign Relations, even asked rhetorically about Ingraffea’s claims about fracking: “Is there value in debating people who don’t want to think?”

Relies heavily on discredited Duke studies

FactCheck.org also leans heavily on the discredited research of Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor who previously worked at Duke University. As the FactCheck.org puts it,

“Rob Jackson, a Stanford University professor of earth system science who coauthored the 2014 study, told us that drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing has ‘contaminated ground waters through chemical and wastewater spills, poor well integrity, and other pathways.’”

Jackson is one of the Duke University researchers who published studies in 2010 and 2013, both of which contained a number of flaws (several conceded by the authors). These flaws include a lack of baseline data, the decision not to randomly sample wells, and the presence of high levels of methane in water wells that were nowhere near natural gas drilling.

Just this week, a new peer-reviewed study by researchers at Syracuse University was published that discredits the Duke researchers’ findings – and it does so by using a much larger sampling size and pre-drill baseline samples. The new paper specifically addresses the limitations of the Duke studies: it uses a dataset hundreds of times larger, it establishes baseline water condition, and it looks at all commercial hydrocarbon wells, not just unconventional wells. The study comes to the conclusion: “there is no significant correlation between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater and proximity to nearby oil/gas wells.”

The U.S. Geological Survey also recently released a report finding plenty of thermogenic methane in water wells in Sullivan County, Pa. (an area where the Duke team also took samples) that predate drilling activity.

Additionally, a recent study by led by Fred Baldassare from Echelon Applied Geochemistry Consulting analyzed groundwater in northeastern Pennsylvania and found large amounts of thremogenic gas, prior to any natural gas development. In fact, 88 percent of the 67 water wells tested had some presence of thermogenic gas, and none of those sampled showed the presence of Marcellus gas. As the study explains,

“When future isotope data show a stray gas in this area to be thermogenic, that finding cannot be the sole basis for alleging that the stray gas was caused by oil or gas-well drilling.”

Ignores government determinations that hydraulic fracturing is safe

While FactCheck.org relies on discredited research and a less-than-objective activist for its “data,” it completely ignores what national and state officials have had to say:

Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy: “I think the issues in terms of the environmental footprint of hydraulic fracturing are manageable.”

Sally Jewell, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior: “Fracking has been done safely for many, many years.”

Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO): “We can’t find examples in Colorado, or more than one or two examples, where fracking, in any sense, has caused harm or been sufficiently dangerous to the public that would justify us to ban it.”

Steven Chu, former Secretary of Energy: “This [hydraulic fracturing] is something you can do in a safe way.”

Ken Salazar, former Secretary of the Interior: “My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.”

Advocating for Obama administration regulations

It’s not until the end of the piece however, that FactCheck.org finally comes clean about the real point of the piece:

“Clearly, the DOI’s new regulation is designed to ensure water quality and safety as it relates to the entire process of extracting oil and natural gas, not just to the singular action of fracking. Inhofe is entitled to the opinion that such regulations should be left in the hands of the states, but he is wrong to say or imply that existing regulatory efforts have a perfect track record when it comes to preventing contamination of water supplies.”

States have been regulating hydraulic fracturing safely and responsibly for more than 65 years, with no incident that would suggest a need for redundant federal regulation.

It appears FactCheck.org needs to do a better job of keeping the “fact” in fact-checking — and stay out of the advocacy business.

]]>http://energyindepth.org/national/fact-check-org-rushes-to-defend-federal-fracking-regulations-steps-on-a-rake/feed/1Center for American Progress Recycles Old Report – and Old Debunked Claimshttp://energyindepth.org/national/center-for-american-progress-recycles-old-report-debunked-claims/
http://energyindepth.org/national/center-for-american-progress-recycles-old-report-debunked-claims/#commentsWed, 25 Mar 2015 21:17:50 +0000http://energyindepth.org/?p=32349The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently published a “new” report on oil and gas-related emissions that is virtually identical to the one it released just six months ago. Also virtually identical are the problems that plagued CAP’s earlier report, which Energy In Depth documented last October.

It’s well known that CAP is funded by a number of anti-fracking foundations such as the Rockefeller and Tides Foundations. But what’s most notable about CAP’s report is that the data were obtained from a report conducted by Stratus Consulting, an organization that was roiled in controversy after falsifying data to support an extortion campaign targeting Chevron in Ecuador. When the facts finally came to light about Stratus’s (possible criminal) complicity in preparing bogus technical reports for the litigants, the firm was forced to publicly recant its work and offer an apology.

Also interesting is the timing here. CAP decided to recycle its report just a day before the Obama administration unveiled its new rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, which leads to the question: could this be a classic case of political cover from a presumed “third party” ahead of the release of a controversial new regulation?

Considering the players involved – and the timing – it should come as no surprise that the CAP report makes scary claims about oil and gas emissions that contradict the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported that emissions have been substantially declining – a finding that, if anything, environmentalists should cheer.

Since CAP evidently grounded its 2015 report in Stratus’ latest report (which is almost identical to its previous report), the problems that made CAP’s findings highly suspect the first time – which EID pointed out then – are also making CAP’s findings highly suspect this time around.

Here are just a few of the flaws in the report:

Fact #1: CAP claims methane emissions are increasing even though production on federal lands has dramatically decreased

The 2015 CAP report claims that the “estimated emissions of onshore oil [extracted on public lands] increased 22 percent from 2010 to 2012, and estimated emissions from onshore natural gas liquids increased more than 25 percent during this period.” CAP’s report last year makes a similar claim, saying methane emissions have “significantly increased over the past five years.”

For methane emissions to increase the way CAP claims they did, either production on federal lands and waters ramped up dramatically, or emissions from existing production somehow increased exponentially – neither of which is the case.

First, production on federal lands and waters has dropped significantly in recent years. An April 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) emphasized that the American energy renaissance has been unfolding primarily on non-federal lands. The report says that since 2009,

“[natural gas] production on federal lands (onshore and offshore) fell by about 28% [while] production on non-federal lands grew 33% over the same time period. The big shale gas plays are primarily on non-federal lands and are attracting a significant portion of investment for natural gas development.”

[…]

“Federal natural gas production has fluctuated from around 30% of total U.S. production for much of the 1980s through the early 2000s (34% of U.S. total in 2003), after which there began a steady decline through 2013. … Any increase in production of natural gas on federal lands is likely to be easily outpaced by increases on non-federal lands, particularly because shale plays are primarily situated on non-federal lands and are where most of the growth in production is projected to occur.”

As for oil, data provided in the CRS report indicates that onshore and offshore oil production on federal lands decreased by 16% from 2010 to 2013.

Since oil and gas production has been falling on federal lands, the only way emissions could have increased, as CAP claims, is if emissions from existing production intensified by leaps and bounds – which did not happen either.

In fact, the EPA credits the oil and gas industry’s operational improvements and voluntary implementation of new technologies as the major reason for the recent decline in emissions:

“Reasons for the 2007 to 2013 trend include an increase in plunger lift use for liquids unloading, increased voluntary reductions over that time period (including those associated with pneumatic devices), and increased Reduced Emission Completions (RECs) use for well completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing…” (p. ES-14)

Previously, the EPA has applauded the industry for adopting new technologies to reduce methane emissions and making development cleaner, safer, and more efficient:

“Changes made to the methodology for completions with hydraulic fracturing and workovers with hydraulic fracturing (refracturing) resulted in a decrease in the estimate of CH4 emissions.”

The EPA’s findings support a study by researchers at the University of Texas (UT) in close coordination with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which findsthat methane emissions rates correspond with the EPA’s estimates and are slightly lower than previously thought:

“The overall average emission rates reported in this work are lower than the previous data sets reported by Allen, et al. for the United States, and for British Columbia and Alberta.”

Instead of using data from the EPA or from the UT/EDF study, CAP and Stratus instead relied on the same inaccurate and misleading data produced by anti-fracking researchers for both reports.

In response to CAP’s October 2014 report, EID explained why the data Stratus used were faulty:

For their “low” estimates, the researchers used data from EPA. The only problem is that they pulled those data from the pages of a deeply-flawed study written by anti-fracking activists Tony Ingraffea and Robert Howarth. Although they had EPA’s latest methane emissions data – and we know this because they cite EPA’s 2014 report on overall emissions when it suited their purpose – they decided instead to use methane estimates from an EPA report that’s three years old. That’s important, because in subsequent reports the EPA revised downward its estimates of methane considerably. In other words, the Stratus researchers deliberately relied on outdated information that suggested methane “leaks” are higher than they actually are.

The other studies that the researchers use for the “harmonization” include the infamous Ingraffea and Howarth methane study, which has been thoroughly debunked, receiving wide criticism from the scientific community. Even President Obama’s former Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu (a Nobel Prize-winning physicist), said of the Ingraffea/Howarth study: “we didn’t think it was credible.”

That’s not the only flawed Ingraffea/Howarth study the researchers consult, either. The highest leakage rates come from a report led by Dana R. Caulton in conjunction with Ingraffea and Howarth. In that report, the researchers relied on data from four flights over southwestern Pennsylvania and ran modeling exercises on the data to determine the source. Their highest methane readings were over Greene County, an area that also happens to be the largest coal producing region in the entire state. A number of state laws require that coal mines must have methane ventilation systems to prevent explosions and to protect workers. The researchers noted the presence of coal mines, albeit stuffed away in the supplemental information section.

A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report led by Gabrielle Petron, which found a leakage rate of 7.7 percent, also from highly uncertain flyovers in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, received a lot of pushback from the scientific community. In a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Michael Levi, energy and environment fellow at the Council on Foreign relations, said that the study’s findings were “unsupportable” based on what he terms the “wrong interpretation” of the data. Levi argues that the emissions rate is a fraction of what Petron and her fellow researchers found. Among NOAA’s errors of analysis, according to Levi, is that “Colorado has imposed tough rules on methane emissions since the NOAA data was collected in 2008.” Later, the Environmental Defense Fund said “conclusions should not be drawn about total leakage based on these preliminary, localized reports.”

Finally, Stratus Consulting cites another NOAA report led by Anna Karion, which found leakage rates as high as 11.7 percent. While EID has the full story on this study here, suffice it to say that among the study’s chief shortcomings is the fact that it measured methane from only one day of data from a three hour flight over only one oil and gas field in the Uintah Basin in Utah with absolutely no way to determine where the methane is coming from.

In other words, Stratus Consulting – and thereby CAP’s conclusions – are drawn primarily from studies finding high emissions, which have been widely criticized for their dubious methodologies, while ignoring the best available data on methane emissions, notably EPA’s latest data and the University of Texas/EDF’s direct measurements.

Because Stratus, and by extension CAP, did not have data on the amount of natural gas that is vented or flared, they simply make assumptions like “it is clear that the volume of wasted gas is high” and “the resulting methane pollution is a major problem.” They then make the wildly incorrect assumption that all natural gas is vented and flared, even though doing so, for producers, would be akin to burning profits:

“ONRR collects data on royalties reported for natural gas venting and flaring on public lands. These data do not separate venting and flaring quantities nor do they differentiate between conventional and unconventional natural gas production. Because we do not know the fraction of natural gas that producers vent versus flare, we present two emissions scenarios for the ONRR royalties reported for venting and flaring data: a scenario that assumes 100% venting and a scenario that assumes 100% flaring. We also assume that the venting is occurring in the production, rather than the pipeline, stage.” (emphasis added)

What CAP and Stratus conveniently ignore is that methane is a valuable commodity in itself that producers can sell, as the Wall Street Journalexplains:

“[M]ethane is not a byproduct of burning natural gas like CO2. The hydrocarbon mixture laymen call natural gas is primarily composed of methane itself, and leakages mean drillers and transporters are losing the valuable commodity they are trying to sell. The economic incentive to capture CH4 has translated into rapid technological progress, and emissions are declining in every significant basin from Texas to North Dakota to Appalachia as more efficient techniques spread throughout the industry.” (emphasis added)

“More than half I believe now of the current frack jobs are so-called green completions, where the methane is captured and is for economic benefit.”

As EID wrote in response to CAP’s earlier report, Stratus’ scenarios of 100 percent flaring and venting are 100 percent bogus:

In other words, not only are the numbers likely already inflated, the researchers also gain their estimates from scenarios of 100 percent flaring and venting, which are not even within the realms of reality.

That said, even if there were more venting and flaring happening on federal lands, the prescription that CAP would no doubt support – increased federal rules – would likely be counterproductive. Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance explained the reason to E&E News, which summarized her remarks:

Sgamma said there is generally more venting and flaring on federal and Indian lands compared with private and state lands due to the difficulties in obtaining rights of way across the federal estate to capture and transport the natural gas. (emphasis added)

The role that federal rules play in preventing flaring reductions was also covered by Reuters just last week:

“North Dakota’s oil producers will struggle to comply with aggressive rules taking effect on Wednesday designed to curb the wasteful burning of natural gas, hindered by lengthy federal reviews of crucial pipelines.

[…]

The main reason, according to Reuters interviews and reviews of regulations, is simple: a Byzantine web of state and federal agencies who must sign off on new pipelines. (emphasis added)

Conclusion

Unwilling to put in the work to improve upon – or even address – the problematic inadequacies of their previous work, CAP and Stratus just recycled old reports and called them “new” and “updated.” The thing is, old news, repackaged, is still old news – and still as inaccurate as ever.

A new peer-reviewed study discredits findings of controversial research claiming that higher concentrations of dissolved methane in domestic water wells can be associated with proximity to nearby gas-producing wells in northeastern Pennsylvania – and it does so using a much larger sampling size and pre-drill baselines. The new paper, titled “Methane Concentrations in Water Wells Unrelated to Proximity to Existing Oil and Gas Wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania,” was published by Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) on March 12, 2015. The research was conducted by Donald I. Siegel from Syracuse Univ., Nicholas A. Azzolina, Bert J. Smith, A. Elizabeth Perry, and Rikka L. Bothun.

Specifically, this new paper addresses assertions made in papers published by researchers from Duke University in 2010 and 2013. As EID noted each time, the studies contained a number of flaws (several conceded by the authors), including a lack of baseline data, the decision not to randomly sample wells, and the presence of high levels of methane in lots of water wells residing nowhere near natural gas wells. A series of peer-reviewed comments took issue with the Duke team’s conclusions, saying there was a “lack of data” to support their conclusions, and that the report “misrepresents potential risks” of shale development.

The methods used in the new peer-reviewed paper specifically address the limitations of the previous study. These include using a dataset hundreds of times larger and the use of all commercial hydrocarbon wells, not just unconventional wells. The study uses four statistical approaches, which come to the same conclusion: “there is no significant correlation between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater and proximity to nearby oil/gas wells.”

As the study concludes:

“Our results show that even among baseline groundwater samples collected near existing gas wells, there is no evidence of systematic increased dissolved methane concentrations closer to oil/gas wells. Indeed, we did not even remove the few cases of known fugitive gas releases in our study to be conservative in our approach. If they are present, then they are rare enough to not affect our results. Combined, the results of all four statistical approaches yield a defensible, compelling argument that there is no significant correlation between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater and proximity to nearby oil/gas wells.” (emphasis added)

The findings of the new study are all the more remarkable after re-examining the comments made by the Duke’s Rob Jackson, and critics of his study, when the original report was released, specifically on the sample size and baseline data:

“[Duke’s Robert] Jackson concedes that the studydoes not have baseline data and said he expected the criticism.” (NY Times/E&E News, May 9, 2011)

“[Professional hydrogeologist John] Conrad also criticized the study for not starting with ‘baseline tests for the wells they sampled’ … ‘While they point to higher methane concentrations, we don’t know what the original water quality was before drilling occurred,’ he said. ‘That’s a data gap thatcould be very significant for this study.’” (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 2011)

No random sampling; authors appear to have simply cherry-picked water wells previously known to have high concentrations of methane, although they never actually mention in the report which wells they sampled or where they’re located: “Jackson said the study was indeed not random, but that was because they needed homeowners permission to test their water.” (CNN, May 9, 2011).

Outrageously small data set; authors tested 68 wells in a state where more than 20,000 new water wells are drilled every year: “I’m not sure you can take 68 wells over a very broad geographic area and make any statistical conclusion,’ [Conrad] said. ‘Methane types and methane concentrations can vary radically over very short distances.’” (Bloomberg News, May 9, 2011)

Also of note, this new peer-reviewed paper was published not long after another study found that methane is also an issue even where no natural gas development is occurring in northeastern Pennsylvania. That study was based on work by researchers Fred Baldassare from Echelon Applied Geochemistry Consulting, Mark McCaffrey of Weatherford Laboratories, and John Harper from the U.S. Geological Survey who conducted an analysis of groundwater in the same area. They looked at more than 2,300 samples from 234 natural gas wells during mud gas logging, and 67 private groundwater supplies prior to natural gas development occurring nearby in a five county area.

These recent studies certainly won’t generate the headlines the initial Duke study did, but residents in northeastern Pennsylvania now have additional scientific evidence to answer their questions about the role of oil and gas production plays in their area.

California Governor Jerry Brown joined NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. During his appearance, the Governor reaffirmed his commitment to combating climate change and made clear that a symbolic and counterproductive ban on hydraulic fracturing would not advance that goal. When host Chuck Todd asked whether the amount of water used in the fracking process is reason enough to ban it, the Governor pounced, using facts rather than anti-fracking rhetoric:

“No, not at all. First, fracking in California has been going on for more than 50 years and uses a fraction of the water of fracking on the east coast for gas particularly. This is vertical fracking for the most part. It is different. California imports 70 percent of our petroleum products; our cars drive over 330 billion miles mostly on petroleum. If we reduce our oil drilling on California, which a ban on fracking would do, we’ll import more oil by train or by boat, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. What we need to do is to move to electric cars, more efficient buildings and more renewable energy and in that respect, California is leading the country and some would say even the world and we’re going to continue moving down that path.”

Gov. Brown is one of the nation’s most celebrated environmentalists who has repeatedly clashed with the oil and gas industry over his long political career. But even he thinks “ban fracking” groups are too extreme. Take a look at this Food & Water Watch blog post, where an anti-fracking activist recounts her run-in with Governor Brown:

“Before I made my way off of the airplane, I took the opportunity to have a short chat with our governor [Jerry Brown] from an empty seat across the aisle. …

Brown immediately put up a wall and went on the defensive: ‘that’s not true,’ he told me. ‘Fracking can be done safely and has been happening here for 60 years.’ And, ‘what do you want to do? Ship in all this oil from Saudi Arabia instead?’”

Coloradans Against Fracking is trying to scare the public using emissions data from Tianjin, reportedly the most polluted city in China. Photo credit: Open.Salon.com

Coloradans Against Fracking – the latest iteration of the Washington, D.C.-based Food & Water Watch’s campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing – has only just launched and is already resorting to the usual desperation tactics in order to scare people on the Front Range about benzene.

Karen Dike of Coloradans Against Fracking claims in a recent blog post that benzene is one of the so-called “dangers of fracking.” However, the blog leans heavily on a number of dubious reports written and peer reviewed by anti-fracking activists, while ignoring a bevy of credible research that does not support her claims.

Faulty Research

Ms. Dike’s assertions on benzene hinge on a study spearheaded by the anti-fracking group, Global Community Monitor (GCM) and peer-reviewed by anti-fracking activists, including Sandra Steingraber, the co-founder of New Yorkers Against Fracking. The study uses methods that have been found to be scientifically unsound: the researchers collected air samples in buckets lined with Tedlar bags. When this same group released a similar study using the same bucket method in Durango, Colorado, the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) found numerous problems with the research, leading them to conclude:

“There are some serious technical deficiencies in the study.”

Dike also references a study by ShaleTest, which claims oil and gas development is polluting the air near playgrounds. But a closer look at the results shows that the report relies on dubious research methods and less than honest comparisons. Specifically, ShaleTest claims to have detected benzene at various Texas playground locations using air sampling on a single day at each site. As Energy in Depth has previously reported, they compared a single day of short term samples to long term thresholds for exposure, resulting in a skewed data set. ShaleTest had been admonished by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a similar study employing the same research methods. When the TCEQ looked into that report, they specifically cited its faulty methodology, stating that “it is not scientifically appropriate” to compare short-term results against long-term thresholds, as the ShaleTest study had done.

Another study Dike references claims that exposure to benzene can “cause changes in sperm that can cause birth defects.” What Dike leaves unmentioned is that the study was based on data on factory workers in Tianjin, China, which one reporter described as “China’s most polluted city.” The emissions in China would be a far cry from those the United States, which has stringent air quality regulations, especially for the oil and gas industry. Suffice it to say, Colorado’s Front Range communities do not face the same experiences as Tianjin locals who “dare not go outside without an air filter face masks” because the “air is so thick with sulfuric gases and coal dust.”

Quite the opposite, in fact. During his expert testimony to the Colorado oil and gas task force, Dr. Larry Wolk, the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), spoke about VOCs from oil and gas wells:

“They’re certainly lower than what you would see or measure in a normal indoor residential environment. So I’m going to say that being inside your home, as a rule, you’ll probably have a higher risk of VOC exposure, or VOC affecting your health, than being outdoors in an oil and gas-rich environment.”

Credible Research Contradicts Coloradans Against Fracking’s Claims

To achieve its goal of trying to scare people across the state, Coloradans Against Fracking relies on a few hand-picked studies conducted by its friends and allies in the “ban fracking” movement. Yet a look at research from state health officials, regulators and other credible agencies tells a different story. Here are just a few reports that have used scientifically appropriate methods finding no credible threat to public health from shale development:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality conducted months of testing in the Barnett Shale area, and its samples showed “no levels of concern for any chemicals.”

A study by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found no major health threat from shale development.

The Colorado Department of Public Health installed air quality monitors at a well site that activists complained about and concluded in its study of the data: “The monitored concentrations of benzene are well within acceptable limits to protect public health, as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted air monitoring in northeast Pennsylvania and concluded that the state “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.”

A study on emissions in the Barnett Shale by the Houston based ToxStrategies concluded that there is no credible health risk associated with shale development: “The analyses demonstrate that, for the extensive number of VOCs measured, shale gas production activities have not resulted in community-wide exposures to those VOCs at levels that would pose a health concern.”

]]>http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/coloradans-against-fracking-launches-with-usual-desperation-tactics/feed/0Brookings Institution Report Finds Shale Benefits in the Billionshttp://energyindepth.org/national/brookings-institution-report-finds-shale-benefits-in-the-billions/
http://energyindepth.org/national/brookings-institution-report-finds-shale-benefits-in-the-billions/#commentsMon, 23 Mar 2015 15:18:50 +0000http://energyindepth.org/?p=32315Researchers from the University of Michigan recently released a report through the Brookings Institution that evaluates the economic impacts of shale development on consumers, producers and the manufacturing industry.

The authors found that the lower commodity price over recent years, thanks to fracking, has benefited consumers in many ways, such as creating lower electricity costs. Total savings are in the billions of dollars, with the average consumer saving around $150 a year. The following excerpt breaks these figures down further:

“… the change in benefits accruing to consumers as a result of the price decline and quantity expansion from 2007 to 2013, totals almost $75 billion per year… The electric power sector, which in 2013 consumed the largest amount of natural gas, experienced the greatest benefit from the price decline, with an increase in consumer surplus of around $25 billion. Consumer surplus in the industrial sector increased by around $22 billion, residential by $17 billion, and commercial by $11 billion per year. ..The total increase in consumer surplus ranges from a low of $45 billion per year to a high of $93 billion.” (page 16, emphasis added)

To go one step further, the report also looks at the overall impacts of natural gas on producers and found that despite a decline in commodity price, there is still a surplus overall seen by operators, shareholders, and other stakeholders who develop these wells.

“Overall, while it is difficult to pinpoint a precise causal effect, the balance of the evidence suggests that manufacturing has experienced an expansion of activity as a result of the shale boom.” (page 32)

One would have to be under a rock to not have heard of the many manufacturing sectors that are experiencing resurgence thanks to lower natural gas prices. EID has covered this topic multiple times over the past few years, including when the White House released a 2012 report on the manufacturing sector. Here’s an excerpt from that report:

“A boom in natural gas production has supported manufacturing: The surge in domestic natural gas production can lower energy costs, reduce pollution and drive investment in the industries that supply equipment the natural gas sector and those that use natural gas as an input to production, like the chemical industry. Recent data from the Energy Information Administration indicate that by the end of 2011 natural gas extraction increased by over 24% since 2006.”

A report released last year PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found the development of natural gas from shale could add more than one million U.S. manufacturing jobs by 2025. A new report prepared for the American Chemistry Council (ACC) found that, thanks to low prices from shale development,U.S. chemical companies have begun or are planning 223 shale-related projects to date, representing a cumulative investment of $137 billion.

Still doubtful? Check out this video:

After relating positive economic findings, the Brookings report goes on to claim that there isn’t enough research to determine the environmental impacts, which simply doesn’t line up with the facts:

“It is therefore impossible to know, at present, the extent to which environmental externalities offset the net welfare gains to natural gas consumers and producers. Improvements in data collection would be immensely valuable both for quantifying potential environmental impacts from fracking and for enabling cost-effective regulation.” (page 41)

Considering the authors cite a previously debunked study by discredited anti-fracking researchers from Cornell University and another on infant health that has yet to be peer-reviewed and is still a “working paper” to arrive to these conclusions, one has to wonder if the research is truly lacking or just not showing what they hoped to find. Meanwhile studies by environmental and health regulators in several states have shown that hydraulic fracturing does not harm air quality. Just to name a few:

Pennsylvania (Pa. DEP 2013 Unconventional Gas Emissions Inventory, slide 7, emphasis added): “Emissions from point sources have decreased since the last complete emissions inventory was developed for 2008. The following table shows the emissions from all point sources has decreased since 2008. The SOx emissions have decreased as a result of the installation of control equipment on the electric generating units as well as the conversion to natural gas.”

Texas (2012 Ambient Air Quality Evaluation, page 11, emphasis added): “Based on the results of the assessment, a limited number of VOCs and carbonyls were detected above method detection limits in the ambient air at the proposed pad site. None of the VOCs or carbonyls identified exceeded the available AMCV criteria (or other TCEQ comparison criteria). The observed concentrations appear to be consistent with background ambient air concentrations observed in similar urban environments and will serve as a good baseline to allow future evaluation of air quality in the general area the samples were collected.”

Despite these few shortcomings, overall, this latest Brookings Institution report shows the Shale Renaissance is having a positive impact on the welfare of consumers — and that’s good news for everyone.

Lower energy prices from soaring shale development have helped industries across the country, and agriculture — an energy-intensive business at the core of the American economy – has gotten a huge boost.

At a time when farmers have struggled to meet costs and sell their products, lower prices from our energy boom have turned things around, keeping many farms in business. As the Associated Pressrecently explained, “Falling energy prices mean tractors are cheaper to run, water is less expensive to pump and crops are more economical to ship.”

Farmers who own mineral rights have also had the additional benefit of receiving royalties for operations on their land – revenues that have allowed them to invest in things like new equipment and facilities. In the words of Bill Jerke, a farmer and a mineral owner in Weld County, Colorado:

“It seems that oil and gas has become agriculture’s best friend over the last 20 or 30 years here in Weld County. We have ups and downs all the time in agriculture. There’s nothing more helpful than being able to go to that mailbox and getting a royalty check. And that helps keep more people in agriculture, and more people healthy economically, than crops, frankly, and livestock prices.”